Westminster Standards and EP

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan J. Ross

Puritan Board Freshman
Does anyone know if J. V. Fesko's The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights addresses EP? I've had much appreciation for his scholarship and was curious if he broached the subject.

Note:
I'm EP. All are welcome to respond. Ephesians 4:31–32. Admins, please place this in whatever category is appropriate.
 
Last edited:
He does and comes to much the same conclusion as Van Dixhorn (although he makes more of an effort to defend his thesis than CVD), arguing that it endorses the singing of Psalms but not the exclusive singing of Psalms. He notes that the word "Psalm" can refer to both Scriptural and extra-canonical songs in contemporary writings. He also relies heavily on Edward Leigh's advocation for inclusive rather than exclusive psalmody and mentions different interpretations of Col 3:16 as implying diversity over EP, although he does also note Dickson's objections. Incidentally, he also claims that the standards "avoid altogether" the question of instruments in worship.
 
Last edited:
As careful and as good historians as JVF and CVD are it is pretty amazing that they argue in the way they do against the plain reading of WCF 21.5, especially considering the works by Thomas Ford, the recommendation of the SMV, and other instances of contemporary accounts.
 
Agreed. And in the context of the work of the assembly that proposed as a part of the covenanted uniformity a new a psalter, purged of anything other than the text of the psalms, it is ignoring the elephant in the room as far as the meaning of the word psalm used in the assembly's productions. See Matthew Winzer's review of Nick Needham on the subject which appeared some time back in The Confessional Presbyterian journal but is online here.
As careful and as good historians as JVF and CVD are it is pretty amazing that they argue in the way they do against the plain reading of WCF 21.5, especially considering the works by Thomas Ford, the recommendation of the SMV, and other instances of contemporary accounts.
 
As careful and as good historians as JVF and CVD are it is pretty amazing that they argue in the way they do against the plain reading of WCF 21.5, especially considering the works by Thomas Ford, the recommendation of the SMV, and other instances of contemporary accounts.

I've seen in a number of cases men try and wiggle out of Ford's contentions by tearing this passage out of context that seems to promote only inclusive psalmody:

But I return to answer the former objection concerning singing of psalms composed by an ordinary and
common gift, as God in his providence gives occasion. And to this I say that I am not so much against
composing, as imposing; when men set up their own new songs, and shut out David's psalms. Suppose it
lawful for men of spiritual minds to indite a psalm, and then commend it to others, and sing it; yet it will not
follow that therefore we must not sing the psalms of David.

SINGING OF PSALMS
THE DUTY OF CHRISTIANS UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT

It seems pretty hard to maintain that interpretation if you read the rest of his work, however, which leaves little room for human composition of psalms for worship as he fleshes out that last observation. For some fairly impressive scholars it seems a bit sub-scholarly. That said, I still have really enjoyed Fesko's work on the Psalms in other areas which makes it doubly disappointing to see him mostly parroting Needham here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top